GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Madagascar 1994-2007 (World Bank- 2008)

8/6/2019 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Madagascar 1994-2007 (World Bank- 2008)

1/100

Evalu

OfficGLOBAL ENVIRONMEN

GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation:Madagascar (19942007)

OctOber 2008

conlusions ommandaions n fanais.

57537


2/100


3/100

Global Environment Facility

Evaluation Office

GEF Couty Potfolo Evluto:Mdgc (19942007)

Octobe 2008

(The main findings and recommendations of thisevaluation were presented to the GEF Council in

April 2008.)

Evaluation Report No. 42


4/100

2008 Global Environment Facility Evaluation Office

1818 H Street, NW

Washington, DC 20433

Internet: www.gefeo.org

Email: [email protected]

All rights reserved.

The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views

of the GEF Council or the governments they represent.

The GEF Evaluation Office does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denomi-

nations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of the GEF concerning the

legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.

Rights and Permissions

The material in this work is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a

violation of applicable law. The GEF encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission promptly.

ISBN-10: 1-933992-14-X

ISBN-13: 978-1-933992-14-3

Credits

Director of the GEF Evaluation Office: Robert D. van den Berg

Task Manager: Lee Alexander Risby, Evaluation Officer, GEF Evaluation Office

Evaluation Team: Christian Chatelain, Timothy Healy, and Alain Randriamaherisoa, consultants

Editing and design: Nita Congress

Printing: Master Print, Inc.

Cover photo: Window of opportunity: Landscape adjacent to Anjozorobe Forest, Madagascar, by Lee Alexander Risby

Evaluation Report No. 42

A FREE PUBLICATION


5/100

Cotet

En Franais

avt-popo .............................................................................................................................. F-1remecemet .......................................................................................................................... F-2

1. Pcple cocluo et ecommdto ................................................................... F-31.1 Contexte ........................................................................................................................................................ F-31.2 Mthodologie ............................................................................................................................................. F-41.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. F-51.4 Recommandations ....................................................................................................................................F-101.5 Questions mergentes concernant le DAR ........................................................................................F-12Note ......................................................................................................................................................................F-12

EnGLisH

Foewod .........................................................................................................................................

ackowledgmet ...................................................................................................................... abbevto .............................................................................................................................. v

1. M Cocluo d recommedto ........................................................................... 11.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................................... 11.2 Methodology.................................................................................................................................................... 21.3 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................................... 31.4 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................................... 71.5 Emerging Issues Concerning the RAF ....................................................................................................... 9

2. Evluto Fmewok .......................................................................................................... 10

2.1 Objectives .......................................................................................................................................................102.2 Key Questions ...............................................................................................................................................102.3 Methodology..................................................................................................................................................112.4 Scope of the Evaluation ...............................................................................................................................122.5 Limitations .....................................................................................................................................................13


6/100

v GEF Couty Potfolo Evluto: Mdgc (19942007)

Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................13

3. Cotext of the Evluto ..................................................................................................... 143.1 Country Context ...........................................................................................................................................143.2 Environmental Resources in Key GEF Focal Areas .............................................................................15

3.3 Legal, Institutional, and Strategic Framework for the Environment in Madagascar ................... 19Note ..........................................................................................................................................................................23

4. The GEF Potfolo Mdgc ......................................................................................... 244.1 Projects Included in the Evaluation .........................................................................................................244.2 GEF in the Context of ODA .......................................................................................................................334.3 National Budget Expenditures in the Environment Sector ................................................................ 34Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................35

5. reult of GEF suppot to Mdgc ............................................................................... 365.1 Global Environmental Benefits and Potential Results ........................................................................36

5.2 Catalytic and Replication Effects .............................................................................................................. 495.3 Sustainability .................................................................................................................................................. 495.4 Summary ........................................................................................................................................................51Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................52

6. relevce of GEF suppot to Mdgc .......................................................................... 536.1 Integration of GEF into the National Sustainable Development: Poverty Reduction .................. 536.2 GEF Support for Environmental Action Plans ......................................................................................566.3 Relevance of GEF Support for Global Environment Benefits ............................................................576.4 GEF Funding and Ownership ....................................................................................................................596.5 RAF Relevance to Madagascar ..................................................................................................................606.6 Summary ........................................................................................................................................................62Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................63

7. Effcecy of GEF-suppoted actvte Mdgc ...................................................... 647.1 Time and Effort Needed to Develop and Implement a Project ......................................................... 647.2 Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities in Project Implementation ................................................. 697.3 The GEF Operational Focal Point Mechanism ....................................................................................707.4 Lesson Learning across GEF Projects ......................................................................................................727.5 Summary ........................................................................................................................................................73

refeece ................................................................................................................................... 74

Boxe5.1 Environment Program II: Successful Project Results ......................................................................... 395.2 Socioeconomic Constraints and Benefits of Protected Areas for Local People:


7/100

Cotet v

The Case of Baie de Baly National Park ..................................................................................................425.3 Sustainable Natural Resource Management in Protected Area Support Zones in

Nosy Be, Ambanja, and Sahamalaza Areas ............................................................................................ 435.4 Results and Impacts of the Anjozorobe Forest Corridor MSP .......................................................... 456.1 Durban Vision ...............................................................................................................................................55

Fgue4.1 GEF National Projects in Madagascar by Focal Area and Modality ................................................ 264.2 GEF Funding for National Projects in Madagascar by Agency and Focal Area ............................ 264.3 GEF Funding for National Projects in Madagascar by Executing Agency and Focal Area ........ 274.4 GEF Funding for Regional and Global Projects Including Madagascar by

GEF Agency and Focal Area ...................................................................................................................... 284.5 GEF Funding for Madagascar Projects by Replenishment Period and Focal Area ....................... 327.1 GEF Activity Cycle ....................................................................................................................................... 647.2 Average Duration of Activity Cycle for Madagascar Projects by GEF Agency .............................. 677.3 GEF Focal Point Position within the Environment Sector ................................................................. 72

Tble1.1 GEF Total Support to National Projects in Madagascar, by Focal Area ............................................ 14.1 GEF-Supported Projects in Madagascar Included in the Evaluation............................................... 254.2 SGP Strategy in Madagascar for GEF-4 ..................................................................................................294.3 Main Activities of Evaluated National and Regional/Global Projects in Madagascar,

by Focal Area and Modality .......................................................................................................................314.4 GEF Funding to Madagascar by GEF Phase, Focal Area, and Agency ............................................ 324.5 Cofinancing/GEF Contribution Ratio by GEF Phase .......................................................................... 334.6 Madagascar Environment Sector Central Government Allocations and Expenditures,

Selected Years ................................................................................................................................................346.1 PRSP and MAP Environmental Objectives............................................................................................ 536.2 Relevance of GEF-Supported Projects to Madagascar Action Plans, Strategies, and Programs ... 576.3 Relevance of GEF-Supported Projects to International Environmental

Conventions and Treaties ...........................................................................................................................587.1 Duration of Activity Cycle for GEF-Supported FSPs in Madagascar .............................................. 657.2 Duration of Activity Cycle for GEF-Supported Enabling Activities in Madagascar .................... 667.3 Duration of Activity Cycle for GEF-Supported Regional and Global Projects in Madagascar .677.4 Planned and Actual Durations of National and Regional Projects in Madagascar ...................... 68

Annexes for this report are available in French on the accompanying CD-ROM.


8/100


9/100

de sa biodiversit au titre du Dispositif dallocation

des ressources.

Nous sommes parvenus la conclusion que le FEM

contribuait de manire positive la prservation

de la biodiversit dimportance mondiale quabritele pays. Laction du Fonds a plus particulirement

permis daccrotre la superficie et la porte des

aires protges et a ralenti le dboisement dans ces

zones. Elle a galement permis Madagascar de

sattaquer dautres questions environnementa-

les telles que les polluants organiques persistants,

lattnuation du risque climatique et les mesures

dadaptation, et la dgradation des sols. En outre,

laide du FEM correspond bien au caractre mon-

dial du mandat de linstitution. Malgr ces aspectspositifs, nous avons mis en lumire lexistence de

plusieurs problmes, commencer par limplica-

tion insuffisante du gouvernement dans le pro-

gramme environnemental et les risques lis la

viabilit financire, institutionnelle et socioco-

nomique du secteur de lenvironnement.

Le premier Rapport dexamen annuel de portefeuilles

pays 2008 prsente les principaux conclusions et

recommandations des valuations faites au Benin,

Madagascar, et Afrique du Sud. Lexamen annuel,

qui a t discute au Conseil du FEM en avril 2008,

est publie sparment (rapport dvaluation No. 44).

Le rsum de lvaluation de porte-feuilles-pays

ralis au Madagascar, a t mis la disposition

avt-popo

Le prsent rapport est le sixime dune srie dexa-

mens de portefeuilles-pays (EPP) raliss par leBureau de lvaluation du Fonds pour lenvironne-

ment mondial (FEM). Ces valuations portent surla totalit de laide du FEM au niveau dun pays,

tous programmes et Entits dexcution confon-dus. Globalement, ces tudes visent : 1) valuer

dans quelle mesure les activits finances par le

FEM sinscrivent dans le cadre des stratgies etpriorits nationales et des grands dfis cologiques

au coeur de la mission de linstitution ; 2) valuerle mode dexcution et les rsultats des activits

finances par le FEM.

Les examens de portefeuilles-pays sont raliss de

manire indpendante par le Bureau de lvalua-tion, si possible en partenariat avec les bureauxde lvaluation des Entits dexcution du FEM,

les administrations nationales et les organisationsnon gouvernementales.

La prsente valuation fait partie dune srie

dexamens de portefeuilles-pays qui portent surlaide que le FEM apporte lAfrique subsaha-

rienne. Plusieurs critres ont prsid au choix deMadagascar, notamment sa longue association

avec le FEM, son statut de rserve mondiale debiodiversit, le rle du secteur de lenvironnement

dans son programme de dveloppement durable,en particulier travers la mise en uvre de son pro-

gramme environnemental, et le volume important

des ressources qui sont alloues la prservation


10/100

F-2 Exme de potefeulle-py du FEM : Mdgc (19942007))

remecemet

Le prsent rapport a t prpar sous la direction de

Lee Alexander Risby, charg dvaluation au Bureau

de lvaluation du FEM, par une quipe constitue

de trois consultants : Christian Chatelain, Timothy

Healy, et Alain Randriamaherisoa.

Ladministration malgache, en particulier les ser-

vices du ministre de lEnvironnement, des Eauxet Forts et du Tourisme, a t trs cooprative et

a particip activement la prsente valuation.

Nous remercions aussi Richard Lewis du Durrell

Wildlife Trust, Agnes Joignerez de Aquaterre

Ltd, et Maria Cruz Gonzalez et Patricia Lantosoa

Ramarojaona du Programme des Nations Unies

pour le dveloppement pour les avis et le soutien

logistique quils ont fournis.

Une version prliminaire du document a t pr-

sente Antananarivo le 25 fvrier 2008 aux diff-

rents intervenants, savoir, notamment, les repr-

sentants du gouvernement, les Entits dexcutiondu FEM, les organisations non gouvernementales

et les autres acteurs de la socit civile. Des avis

trs constructifs ont t reus et intgrs notre

rapport. Le Bureau de lvaluation assume lentire

responsabilit du contenu du prsent document.

du Conseil comme un document dinformation.Pendant les discussions au cours des runions dumois dAvril 2008, le Conseil a fait rfrence auxconclusions des examens du portefeuille-pays auBnin, au Madagascar et en Afrique du Sud. Cela

a t un signe trs positif parce que les valuationsont apports au Conseil des informations perti-nentes pour des futures discussions.

Les conclusions de lvaluation ont t discutesen Antanarivo dans un atelier de consultation

avec un large ventail des parties prenantes natio-nales en Fvrier 25, 2008. Je voudrais remercier leGouvernement de Madagascar et tous les parti-cipants pour leur intrt dans lvaluation et leursupport au Bureau de lEvaluation.

Rob van den BergDirecteur du Bureau de lvaluation


11/100

1. Pcple cocluo et ecommdto

Tbleu 1.1

ade du FEM Mdgc p domedteveto, 19942007

Dome dtevetoFcemet

UsD M % du totl

Divsi iologiqu 34.925 97.0

changmns limaiqus 0.550 1.5

POP 0.500 1.5

toal 35.975 100.0

Le chapitre 1 prsente les conclusions de lexamendu portefeuille du Fonds pour lenvironnementmondial (FEM) Madagascar ralis par le Bureaude lvaluation et reprend les recommandations ladresse du Conseil du FEM, du gouvernement et

des Entits dexcution du FEM. Les conclusionsportent sur trois aspects : pertinence de l'aide duFEM, rsultats et efficacit, et efficacit par rap-port aux cots.

Acheve entre novembre 2007 et fvrier 2008,lvaluation est lun des quatre examens de porte-feuilles-pays raliss en Afrique par le Bureau delvaluation du FEM durant la mme priode (lestrois autres ont t conduits en Afrique du Sud, auBnin et au Cameroun).

Lexamen portait sur dix projets nationaux et surles composantes Madagascar de huit des 13projets rgionaux auxquels le pays participe (lesautres projets rgionaux et leurs rsultats nentrentpas dans le cadre de la prsente valuation). Lesobservations que les diffrents acteurs ont prsen-tes par crit et lors de latelier de consultation du25 fvrier 2008 ont t prises en compte dans laversion finale des conclusions et des recomman-

dations de lvaluation.

1.1 Cotexte

Madagascar fait partie du FEM depuis 1994, po-que laquelle le Fonds a fourni un financement lappui de la seconde phase du Programme

environnemental men en application duProgramme national daction environnementale.Depuis lors, Madagascar a pris part neuf autresprojets nationaux auxquels le FEM a contribu hauteur de quasiment 36 millions de dollars au

total. Comme lillustre le tableau ci-aprs, environ97 % du financement du FEM a servi appuyerdes projets dans le domaine dintervention diver-sit biologique , le solde se rpartissant partspresque gales entre les domaines dinterven-tion changements climatiques et polluantsorganiques persistants . Il n'existe aucun projetnational dans les domaines de la lutte contre ladgradation des sols et des eaux internationales.Madagascar participe toutefois 13 projets rgio-

naux sur les eaux internationales, la dgradationdes sols, les polluants organiques persistants et labiodiversit.

Dans la logique du cadre de rfrence et de lob- jet gnral des examens de portefeuilles-pays du


12/100


FEM, les objectifs particuliers de lvaluation delaide du FEM Madagascar taient les suivants :

valuer lefficacit et les rsultats de lensemblezdes projets achevs et en cours dans chaquedomaine dintervention ;

valuer de faon indpendante la pertinence etzlefficacit de laide du FEM sous les angles sui-vants : dispositifs nationaux et mcanismes dedcision dans le domaine de lenvironnement ;mandat du FEM et effets positifs sur lenviron-nement mondial ; et politiques et procduresdu FEM ;

partager les ractions et les acquis avec : lezConseil du FEM dans le cadre de son mca-

nisme de dcision sur lallocation des ressourceset llaboration des politiques et des stratgies ;le pays du point de vue de son association avecle FEM ; et les Entits dexcution et les organi-sations charges de llaboration et de la miseen uvre des projets financs par le FEM.

Madagascar a t retenue notamment pour lesraisons suivantes : la taille du portefeuille du pays ;le rle du secteur de lenvironnement dans le pro-gramme de dveloppement durable et notammentlapproche-programme applique au programmeenvironnemental ; la large place de la biodiversitet du dispositif daires protges dans le porte-feuille ; limportance des ressources affectes labiodiversit dans le cadre du Dispositif dalloca-tion des ressources (DAR) ; et le rle du pays entant que zone ultrasensible pour la prservationde la biodiversit.

1.2 Mthodologe

Lexamen du portefeuille de Madagascar a tralis par le personnel du Bureau de lvaluationdu FEM et trois consultants bass en France et Madagascar. La mthodologie incluait une sriede composantes combinant des mthodes de

collecte de donnes qualitatives et quantitativeset des outils normaliss danalyse. Des documentsde diffrentes sources (projets, gouvernement,socit civile, Entits dexcution du FEM, etc.)ont t utiliss pour jeter les bases de lvaluation.

La qualit de ces documents a t pralablementexamine. Pour lanalyse quantitative, des indi-cateurs ont servi valuer lefficacit de laide duFEM, les projets tant pris comme units dana-lyse (dlais et cots de prparation et dexcutiondes projets, par exemple). Nous avons utilis desoutils et protocoles types que nous avons adaptsau contexte de Madagascar. Un certain nombre deprojets ont t slectionns pour des visites de siteselon des critres dachvement, dapproches uti-

lises pour le projet ou pour ses composantes, etdaccessibilit.

Notre valuation porte essentiellement sur dixprojets nationaux , cest--dire excuts sur leterritoire malgache, et huit projets rgionaux aux-quels le pays participe activement, dont quatre surles eaux internationales. Lvaluation compltede la pertinence des rsultats et de lefficacit desprojets rgionaux par rapport leurs cots sortdu cadre du prsent examen de portefeuille-pays,

qui nanalyse que les composantes malgaches. Lesprojets nationaux et rgionaux en cours de prpa-ration ont t exclus de cette valuation.

La ralisation des EPP en gnral et de celui deMadagascar en particulier est limite par plu-sieurs facteurs :

Lexamen du portefeuille-pays est un exercicezdifficile car les projets du FEM ne sorganise pas

autour dun programme national assorti dob-jectifs, dindicateurs et de cibles pour mesurerles rsultats attendus ;

Il est difficile disoler les rsultats directementzattribuables au FEM. Nous navons donc pascherch attribuer au FEM limpact de certaines


13/100

1. Pcple cocluo et ecommdto F-5

activits sur le dveloppement, mais dexaminerla contribution du Fonds aux rsultats pris dansleur ensemble ;

Lvaluation des rsultats est axe, dans lazmesure du possible, sur les effets et les impacts

plutt que sur les produits ;

lvaluation des impacts des initiatives financeszpar le FEM nest pas un processus simple : denombreux projets ne prcisent pas clairementou suffisamment les impacts ni mme parfoisles effets attendus. La prsente valuation selimitant des sources de donnes secondaires,il na pas t possible de rassembler des don-nes primaires pour complter les rapports deprojet ou mettre en vidence les impacts ou leseffets des activits ;

Les rsultats dont il est fait tat proviennent dezdiverses sources ; certains dcoulent dune va-luation externe et dautres sont tirs de rapportsde projet et dentrevues internes ;

Nous avons fait beaucoup defforts pour ras-zsembler un ensemble de donnes claires et fia-bles sur les projets et les documents qui y sontlis ; les donnes disponibles, notamment la

liste des projets du portefeuille du FEM, sontdivergentes, incompltes et disparates ;

Lvaluation a t ralise dans un dlai trszbref, quatre mois, pour tenir compte des nou-velles dates de la runion du Conseil du FEM.

1.3 Cocluo

rultt et effcct du potefeulle

Cocluo o

1 : Lppu du FEM pem dob-te de ultt ppcble d le domede l pevto de l bodvet.

Lappui du FEM dans le domaine dintervention Diversit biologique a eu des effets positifsapprciables sur lenvironnement mondial. Il a

notamment permis daccrotre la superficie et laporte du rseau daires protges, qui est pass de21 46 rserves. Il a galement contribu ralen-tir le dboisement de ces zones.

Lappui du FEM a facilit la mise en uvre du Plannational daction environnemental, ce qui a permis :

de sensibiliser les gouvernants aux questionszenvironnementales ;

de mettre en place des institutions nationaleszcharges de la prservation de la biodiversit etdautres questions environnementales ;

dlargir le dispositif national daires prot-zges, conformment la Vision Durban, en

sappuyant sur une procdure unique et unebase juridique simplifie le Systme dAiresProtges de Madagascar (SAPM) pour crerde nouvelles catgories de zones protges etpermettre une plus grande participation despopulations locales et du secteur priv.

Notamment, le FEM appuie le premier exemplemalgache de gestion durable daires protges parles populations locales, qui couvre 50 000 hectaresdu couloir forestier dAnjozorobe. Cette exprience

est maintenant reproduite plus grande chelle.

Lappui que le FEM apporte aux activits habili-tantes dans le domaine de la biodiversit a aidles autorits malgaches tablir des priorits etcrer de nouvelles aires protges, conformment la Vision Durban et au SAPM, particulirementdans les zones marines et ctires jusqualorssous-reprsentes.

Cocluo o 2 : Le FEM de Mdgc ele-ve dute df cologque.

Lappui du FEM permet aux autorits malgacheset aux autres acteurs concerns de sattaquer un plus large ventail de problmes cologiquesnationaux et mondiaux, qui dpasse le cadre


14/100


bien tabli de la prservation de la biodiversit.Les ressources du FEM ont surtout t utilisespour jeter les bases permettant Madagascar desattaquer des questions cologiques de portemondiale grce des activits habilitantes dans les

domaines des polluants organiques persistants, delattnuation du risque climatique et des mesuresdadaptation, et de la dgradation des sols. Il estnotamment signaler que le Plan daction natio-nal dadaptation adopt par le gouvernement adtermin les priorits nationales et les domainesdintervention futurs.

Dans le domaine dintervention eaux inter-nationales , le FEM a principalement appuyla coordination de laction du pays avec celle

dautres tats dAfrique australe et de locanIndien sur la question de la pollution par leshydrocarbures. Ce partenariat a permis derenforcer les capacits et linfrastructure desprincipaux ports de Madagascar. La viabilitdes investissements est assure par un sys-tme dimposition. De nouveaux projets sonten cours dans ce domaine dintervention. Ayantpour but de rduire les polluants dorigine ter-restre, damliorer la navigation et de grer les

ressources halieutiques, ils sont susceptiblesde se traduire par des rsultats importants.Dautres projets sont sur le point de dmarrerdans le domaine dintervention dgradationdes sols .

Cocluo o 3 : L fble vblt fce,ttutoelle et ococoomque compo-met le ultt du potefeulle du FEM.

Bien que les bailleurs de fonds aient investi plus

de 400 millions de dollars dans le secteur de lenvi-ronnement depuis 1990, y compris les apports duFEM hauteur de prs de 36 millions de dollars,la viabilit financire, institutionnelle et socioco-nomique demeure le grand dfi relever, particu-

lirement en ce qui concerne le PE qui amorce sadernire phase.

Les bailleurs de fonds, y compris le FEM, ntantpas parvenus faire merger un dispositif degestion durable des aires protges, la viabilitfinancire du PE est insuffisante. Peu daires pro-tges sont en mesure de financer les oprationsqui sy rapportent grce aux droits dentre et/ouaux recettes touristiques. Les autorits malgaches,la Banque mondiale, les ONG internationales etle FEM, par ses financements dans le cadre duDAR, mettent sur pied un mcanisme de fondsfiduciaire qui apportera un soutien long termeau rseau daires protges. Ce mcanisme laissebien augurer dun rglement du problme de via-

bilit financire.

Le renforcement de la viabilit institutionnelleen vue dune gestion efficace de la biodiversitet des ressources environnementales est un pro-blme qui se pose depuis le lancement du PE.Malgr limportance des concours financiers ettechniques des bailleurs de fonds, la viabilit ins-titutionnelle demeure faible. Nous avons mis enlumire les aspects suivants :

La viabilit dune institution repose souventzsur un ventail de capacits aux niveaux local,rgional et national, et sur des sources de finan-cement durables, provenant de recettes pro-pres ou de crdits budgtaires. Bon nombredes institutions intervenant actuellement dansle secteur de lenvironnement Madagascar nerpondent pas ces critres. Elles ne sont doncpas viables sans les concours des bailleurs defonds.

Aux niveaux individuel et institutionnel, leszcapacits demeurent ingales et disperses. Lesfaiblesses du ministre de lEnvironnement,des Eaux et Forts et du Tourisme aux niveauxnational et local font que dautres institutions


15/100


vocation environnementale sont les bnficiai-res dune grande partie des financements et delassistance technique fournis par les bailleursde fonds. La dcentralisation est lorigine decertains des obstacles dus au manque de capa-

cits institutionnelles. En effet, les reprsen-tants du ministre sur le terrain ne possdentpas les comptences ncessaires pour jouer unrle important dans la gestion de lenvironne-ment aux niveaux des administrations et despopulations locales.

La complexit des fonctions et des attributionszdes institutions intervenant dans le PE II et le PEIII compromet la communication et le transfertdu savoir entre ces institutions.

Pour ce qui est de la viabilit socioconomique,le PE II et le PE III ont constamment insist surla ncessit de concilier lobjectif de prservationde la biodiversit avec celui damlioration desmoyens de subsistance des populations locales.La promotion de la gestion forestire de proximitet de microprojets pour amliorer les moyens desubsistance a permis denregistrer certains succs,allgeant la pression exerce sur les aires protgesmais, dans lensemble, les rsultats sont disparateset leur viabilit est limite. Plus rcemment, unecomposante du PE excute par le Programmedes Nations Unies pour lenvironnement et leFEM a galement tent de concilier les objectifsde protection de la biodiversit et damliorationdes moyens de subsistance des populations loca-les ; les rsultats et la viabilit de cette dmarchene se sont pas encore matrialiss.

Les valuations indpendantes du PE I et du PE

II entreprises par la Banque mondiale en 1997et 2000 montrent que le programme a eu du mal prendre en compte les pressions anthropiqueslies au dveloppement rural, aux mauvaisestechniques agricoles et la pauvret, et rsou-dre ces problmes qui menacent la biodiversit.

Au bout du compte, ce sont les populationslocales vivant la priphrie des aires protgesqui, nayant plus accs aux ressources, paientle prix de lamlioration de ltat de lenviron-nement de la plante. Pour le moment, on ne

cherche pas assez tablir de liens entre la pr-servation de la biodiversit et le dveloppementrural et agricole dans le cadre dune dmarchecohrente fournissant des incitations prser-ver la biodiversit.

Petece du potefeulle

Cocluo o 4 : Le potefeulle du FEM Md-gc coepod be ux pot et tt-ge tole. Lppu de lttuto cde

be vec lobjectf dmloto de levo-emet u veu modl, l pot u le te- tt ccode l bodvet.

Lappui du FEM cadre bien avec les priorits etstratgies nationales telles que le Plan nationaldaction environnementale (PNAE) et la Stratgienationale de rduction de la pauvret, dont ilconcourt pleinement la mise en uvre. Le bien-fond de cette aide se voit confirm par la VisionDurban (le Gouvernement malgache a prvu en

2003 de porter la superficie des aires protges 10 % du territoire national) et par le Plan dactionde Madagascar (PAM) 2007-2012, dont au moinsdeux des huit engagements concernent spcifi-quement lenvironnement. Le portefeuille du FEMporte surtout sur la prservation de la biodiver-sit, dans le droit fil du riche patrimoine malgachede ressources cologiques caractre mondial.Jusqu une date rcente, laccent tait exclusive-ment mis sur la biodiversit terrestre. La mise en

uvre de la Vision Durban permet aujourdhuiaux autorits malgaches de commencer largirla porte du rseau daires protges aux ressour-ces ctires et marines. La prise de conscience desmenaces rsultant du risque climatique permetaussi dinvestir dans les synergies entre ladaptation


16/100


la modification du climat, la prservation de labiodiversit et la dgradation des sols.

Cocluo o 5 : Lppopto de pojet ple py et l cpct ucte cette dho

etet de df mjeu pou le utot ml-gche et le blleu de fod.

Lvaluation montre que ladhsion des autoritsmalgaches aux interventions finances par le FEMnest pas aussi solide quelle devrait ltre, particuli-rement en ce qui concerne le programme environ-nemental (PE). Ainsi, bien que dcoulant du Plannational daction environnementale (PNAE) qui at adopt par les pouvoirs publics, ce programmeest en grande partie pilot par les Entits dexcu-

tion du FEM et les bailleurs daide bilatrale, quiexpliquent cette situation par un manque de capa-cits et dinitiative de la part du ministre de lEnvi-ronnement, des Eaux et Forts et du Tourisme.

Le taux lev de renouvellement du personnelde ce ministre, aussi bien au niveau du ministre(point focal politique du FEM) que du secrtairegnral (point focal technique du FEM) ne permetpas un leadership stable et clair sur les questionstouchant le FEM ou le secteur de lenvironnement

dans son ensemble.

Au cours de ses diffrentes phases, le PE a cr denombreuses institutions (dont lAssociation natio-nale de gestion des aires protges, lOffice natio-nal de lenvironnement, le Service dappui la ges-tion de lenvironnement, et lunit de coordinationdu programme), ce qui a aggrav les problmes deleadership et de capacits aux niveaux national etlocal. La prolifration des institutions a entran

une dispersion des rles, crant un manque declart, une coordination imparfaite et un paysageinstitutionnel complexe. Bien que chacune de cesinstitutions soit charge de composantes spcifi-ques du PE, les rapports hirarchiques et les attri-butions ne sont pas clairs. Cette dmultiplication

a t soutenue par les Entits dexcution du FEMet reflte le manque de confiance de certainsbailleurs de fonds lgard du ministre de lEnvi-ronnement, des Eaux et Forts et du Tourisme.

Le projet du couloir forestier dAnjozorobe qui at mont et excut par Fanamby, la plus grandeorganisation non gouvernementale (ONG) dans lesecteur de lenvironnement Madagascar, offre uncontraste saisissant avec ce qui prcde. Dans ceprojet, lappropriation et lengagement sont fortstant au plan interne, par la stratgie de prserva-tion de la biodiversit qui cadre parfaitement aveccelle du FEM, quau plan externe, du fait de la par-ticipation des populations et des administrationslocales. Lappropriation de ce projet est le fruit de

limplication continue des diffrents acteurs danssa conception et sa mise en uvre. La qualit dela stratgie de communication et la forte prsencede Fanamby sur le terrain ont galement contri-bu susciter cette appropriation.

Effcct p ppot ux cot

Cocluo o 6 : L complext et leffcctdu cycle de ctvt du FEM ot de obtcle llboto de pojet.

La majorit des acteurs interviews (autorits mal-gaches, Entits dexcution et ONG) ont exprimdes points de vue ngatifs sur le cycle des activitsdu FEM. Ils ont notamment relev les lenteurs,les cots de transaction levs en termes de res-sources financires et humaines, et le manquede prcision et dinformation sur les raisons desretards. Ce sentiment, qui rsulte principalementdu fonctionnement du cycle de projets qui taiten vigueur jusqu une date rcente, confirme lesconstatations de lvaluation conjointe du cycle desactivits du FEM1. Le dfi pour le FEM consistemaintenant dmontrer que le nouveau cycle desprojets qui a t adopt rcemment ne prsenterapas les mmes lacunes.


17/100


Cocluo o 7 : Le focto et ttbutode pte pete ux pojet ot floue, lcoodto et uffte.

Le paysage institutionnel de Madagascar estcomplexe, du fait de lclatement des fonctions etattributions des acteurs concerns. Cette situa-tion entrane de nombreux problmes de com-munication, de coordination et de transfert dusavoir. Il ne sagit pas dun problme nouveaudans le pays. Les valuations indpendantes duPE I et du PE II ralises par la Banque mon-diale en 1997 et 2000 font toutes deux ressortirle manque de clart au sujet des fonctions et desattributions, depuis le niveau national (ministre)jusquau niveau le plus bas, celui des populations

locales. Ainsi, les points focaux de plusieurs projets rgionaux sur les eaux internationales sontactuellement bass dans des institutions nonspcialises dans ce domaine dintervention etqui travaillent trs peu avec les ministres secto-riels plus comptents en la matire. Cette situa-tion est loin dtre idale

Le grand nombre de parties prenantes au pro-gramme environnemental de Madagascar rend

la coordination difficile. Jusqu prsent, les ten-tatives faites pour rgler ce problme ont donndes rsultats mitigs. Lors de nos entretiens, demultiples bailleurs de fonds, hauts fonctionnairesmalgaches et ONG internationales ont soulignce problme permanent de manque de coordi-nation en termes de synergies entre les activitsfinances par les bailleurs de fonds et les activitsinterministrielles, les systmes de suivi et dva-luation, et les mcanismes de remonte de lin-formation qui en dcoule. Plus rcemment, lesbailleurs de fonds et les autorits malgaches ontessay de relever ces dfis en crant un comitdirecteur comprenant des reprsentants desbailleurs de fonds et de ladministration, mais

celui-ci ne se runit pas rgulirement et passepour tre sous lemprise des bailleurs de fonds.Cette situation est attribuable la faiblesse ins-titutionnelle du ministre et au taux lev derenouvellement du personnel.

Cocluo o 8 : Le mcme de pot focl duFEM d le py e dpot p de moyeufft, l e peut te optoel.

Le point focal technique na pas les ressources etle temps quil faut pour laborer et superviser leportefeuille du FEM comme il se doit. Par ailleurs,la continuit institutionnelle fait dfaut, le pointfocal technique ayant chang 11 fois en dix ans etquatre fois au cours des quatre dernires annes.

En outre, Madagascar a besoin dun comit natio-nal stable, pouvant programmer les ressourcesdu DAR de faon stratgique et assurer la coor-dination sur les questions environnementaleshors projet ou hors programme. Un comit sestruni par le pass, mais de faon ponctuelle et malorganise.

Cocluo o 9 : E o du mque de uv

et dvluto, l geto du vo et l pe ecompte de eegemet t de pojet eot p ytmtque.

Madagascar, il nexiste pas de mcanisme bientabli de transfert des acquis et du savoir ni entreles projets et les programmes du FEM, ni entre cesactivits et les programmes environnementauxdes autres bailleurs de fonds et des ONG inter-nationales. La faiblesse du suivi et de lvaluationne permet pas de mettre en vidence les causesdu succs ou de lchec dune opration don-ne. dfaut damlioration sur ce plan, la ges-tion du savoir rsultant des enseignements tirsdes projets et des mthodes de rfrence resteraapproximative.


18/100


1.4 recommdto

ldee du Coel du FEM

recommdto 1 : Evge de pomou-vo dvtge l fomule de fod fduce

pou meux ce lmloto de levo-emet modl d l due.

Les faiblesses de la viabilit financire constituentun problme frquent associ aux interventionsfondes sur des projets. Dans les annes 90, le FEMa soutenu la formule des fonds fiduciaires pourassurer la viabilit long terme des aires prot-ges, aprs lachvement des projets. Lvaluationrcente de limpact du fonds fiduciaire de BwindiMgahinga a confirm lefficacit de cette manire

de procder pour laccroissement et le maintiendes capacits de gestion, des cots rcurrents etdes mesures incitatives proposes aux populationslocales. Le Conseil devrait envisager daccorder nouveau la priorit aux fonds fiduciaires afin deprenniser les gains raliss dans le domaine delenvironnement mondial.

recommdto 2 : lboe ue ttgepou mloe l cpct fe fce ux po-

blme evoemetux ccte modld le py le mo vc.

Cette entreprise pourrait comprendre plusieursvolets, savoir :

renforcer le mcanisme de point focal du FEMzpour quil fonctionne bien ;

laborer une mthode de coordination strat-zgique intgre et efficace du partenariat et ducofinancement ;

favoriser la cration dun partenariat afin dac-zcrotre la mobilisation des ressources destines la mise en uvre des conventions interna-tionales en rapport avec le FEM, en particulierpour les pays les moins avancs ;

favoriser lintgration, la coordination et lazconcertation efficaces et stratgiques entre lesacteurs dans le domaine de lenvironnement auniveau du pays, notamment entre les dparte-ments ministriels ;

reconnatre que les pays nont pas les mmeszcapacits ni le mme niveau de dveloppementconomique et que la souplesse et les mthodestailles sur mesure simposent.

ldee du Gouveemet mlgche

recommdto 3 : rflch l pobltde ce u comt evoemetl pemetut plueu mte et blleu defod.

Les questions environnementales doivent trergles de manire exhaustive et cohrente endehors du cadre dun comit de projet ou de pro-gramme particulier. Un comit permanent devraitpar consquent sarticuler sur les stratgies exis-tantes du Gouvernement malgache (telles que lePAM et la Vision Durban) et faire intervenir unevaste gamme de partenaires ministriels dont leministre de lAgriculture, de llevage et de la

Pche ; le ministre des Finances ; le ministre desTransports ; et le ministre des Mines. Ce comitservirait aussi de plateforme pour lexamen stra-tgique intersectoriel des questions environne-mentales dans le contexte du PAM, llaborationdune stratgie axe sur les ressources issues duDAR et la programmation desdites ressources.

recommdto 4 : sttque ux fcteucompomettt l vblt log teme decqu e dveft dvtge le vete-

met d le ecteu de levoemet.

La majeure partie de laide consentie jusquici parles bailleurs de fonds et les ONG internationa-les en faveur de la prservation de la biodiversitest centre sur la cration dun systme daires


19/100


protges plus exhaustif. Or, cette approche tend

ngliger les menaces externes la biodiversit

dans le contexte plus large des mauvaises prati-

ques agricoles (comme la culture sur brlis), de

la rduction de la pauvret et de la dgradation

des sols. Ces questions occupent dsormais ledevant de la scne en raison de la menace que

reprsentent les changements climatiques et de

la ncessit de sy adapter. Le SAPM constitue un

mcanisme permettant de prendre en compte

la fois la prservation de la biodiversit et lam-

lioration des moyens dexistence par la constitu-

tion de catgories particulires daires protges.

Les catgories V et VI de lUnion mondiale pour

la nature (UICN) visent grer les aires prot-

ges tout en faisant une place la recration et lutilisation durable des ressources. En outre, les

acteurs concerns doivent envisager de prendre

systmatiquement en compte les aspects lis la

biodiversit, la dgradation des sols et ladap-

tation au changement climatique en dehors du

cadre des aires protges, de manire permettre

un rapprochement pratique plus efficace entre

ces aspects et la rduction de la pauvret et le

dveloppement agricole et rural des questions

dintrt pour la population malgache majoritai-

rement rurale.

cette fin, les autorits malgaches et les bailleurs

de fonds devront combler lternelle lacune lie au

renforcement des capacits et tablir des parte-

nariats avec des ONG, le secteur priv, et les col-

lectivits et populations locales pour surmonter

les obstacles institutionnels, financiers et socio-

conomiques la viabilit long terme dans le

secteur de lenvironnement qui recoupe les dfisurgents lis au dveloppement du pays. Un comit

environnemental permanent (recommandation

n3) pourrait se charger de la programmation et

du rglement de ces questions.

ldee de Ett dexcuto du FEM

recommdto 5 : Collboe de fo plutote vec le utot mlgche et le utecteu coce pou que le py detfedvtge ux cto mee.

Lune des constatations importantes de lvalua-

tion est la faiblesse de la prise en main par le pays,laquelle peut tre renforce par :

la participation des Entits dexcution du FEMzau comit environnemental permanent runis-

sant plusieurs ministres et bailleurs de fondsvis la recommandation n3 ; cela servirait debase une dfinition plus stratgique des prio-rits en sappuyant sur lexprience des Entits

dexcution pour satisfaire les besoins du pays ;

un appui apport par les Entits dexcution auzpoint focal technique pour renforcer son rleen lassociant la conception du projet, auxactivits de supervision/suivi, et par lchangergulier des informations ;

un accent accru mis sur le renforcement deszcapacits dans les projets et programmes afinde permettre une plus grande implication dun

ensemble dacteurs des dpartements minist-riels, des administrations locales et des popula-tions locales dans les interventions du FEM.

recommdto 6 : Tvlle vec le uto-t mlgche et le ute cteu coce llboto due ouvelle ppoche-ec-teu et due ouvelle ppoche-pogmmepou mloe l vblt du pot de vuecologque.

Les problmes environnementaux de Madagascarsont complexes et ncessitent denvisager desapproches sectorielles et des approches-program-mes qui puissent relier et coordonner la prser-

vation de la biodiversit, la dgradation des solset ladaptation au changement climatique dune


20/100


part et le dveloppement rural et agricole et larduction de la pauvret dautre part. Ce faisant,les Entits dexcution du FEM et les autoritsmalgaches doivent procder linventaire de len-semble des lments concrets dvaluation dont ils

disposent aujourdhui pour internaliser les leonstires du programme environnemental et avancerensemble de manire planifier une approche-programme et/ou une approche sectorielle pluscohrente et durable.

Ladaptation au changement climatique et ladgradation des sols viennent en tte des prio-rits rgionales (continentales) et peuvent offrirdes incitations au niveau local pour amlioreret prenniser la protection de lenvironnement

national et mondial.

1.5 Queto megetecocet le Dar

Le Bureau de lvaluation ralisant actuellement unexamen mi-parcours du Dispositif dallocationdes ressources (DAR), il na pas t jug indiqu deformuler des conclusions et des recommandationsfinales ce sujet. Mais le DAR reste un lment de

grande proccupation pour les acteurs malgachescomme indiqu ci-dessous :

Les quelques acteurs qui le connaissaient assezzbien considraient le DAR comme une tapepositive vers une prise en main accrue et la par-ticipation la dfinition, llaboration et lamise en uvre des projets refltant aussi bien lespriorits nationales que les priorits mondialesdu FEM. Or, cela ne sest pas encore concrtis.

Nombreux sont les acteurs qui ne connaissentzpas le DAR, cest--dire son fonctionnement et,surtout, la manire dont les autorits malgachesdevraient prendre en main la programmationdes ressources reues du FEM dans le cadre de

ce dispositif.Malgr les importantes ressources alloues zMadagascar dans le domaine de la biodiversit,le pays manque dapproche stratgique lap-pui de la programmation des ressources issuesdu DAR. lheure actuelle, Madagascar na nicomit environnemental ni comit national,constitu dans le cadre du FEM, se runissantrgulirement pour donner des orientationsstratgiques llaboration des projets au titre

du DAR. Cette situation tient en partie auxchangements oprs la tte du ministrede lEnvironnement, des Eaux et Forts et duTourisme.

Fin 2006, le Secrtariat du FEM et les autoritszmalgaches se sont entretenus sur la program-mation des ressources du DAR affectes labiodiversit. Or, dans le cadre de lvaluation,nous navons trouv ni pice crite ni compterendu de ces discussions conserv par lun oulautre interlocuteur, ce qui reprsente unegrosse perte en mmoire institutionnelle et entransparence.

noteBureau de lvaluation du FEM, valuation1.conjointe du cycle des activits et des modalitsapplicables, Rapport dvaluation no 33 (Washing-ton, 2007).


21/100

Foewod

This report is the fifth in a series of country port-

folio evaluations produced by the EvaluationOffice of the Global Environment Facility (GEF).

Using the country as the unit of analysis, theseevaluations examine the totality of GEF sup-

port across all GEF Agencies and programs. Theoverall objectives for undertaking such studies

are (1) to evaluate how GEF-supported activi-

ties fit into national strategies and priorities aswell as within the global environmental mandate

of the GEF and (2) to assess the results of GEF-supported activities and how these activities are

implemented.

Country portfolio evaluations are conducted inde-

pendently by the Evaluation Office in partnership,when possible, with other GEF Agency evaluationoffices, the national government, and nongovern-

mental organizations.

This evaluation was part of a series of countryportfolio evaluations examining GEF support in

Sub-Saharan Africa. Madagascar was chosen forsuch evaluation based on several criteria, includ-

ing its long history with the GEF; its significanceas a global hotspot for biodiversity; the role of the

environmental sector in its sustainable develop-ment agenda, particularly regarding the imple-

mentation of its Environment Program; and itslarge GEF funding allocation for biodiversity

conservation under the Resource Allocation

Framework.

The evaluation found that GEF support has

contributed positively to the conservation of

Madagascars globally important biodiversity.

Most notably, the GEF contributed to an increase

in the size and coverage of protected areas and

decreased deforestation within them. The GEFhas also enabled Madagascar to address other

environmental concerns such as persistent

organic pollutants, climate change mitigation

and adaptation, and land degradation. GEF sup-

port has been consistent with its global mandate.

Despite these successes, the evaluation found

several challenges such as weak government

ownership of the Environment Program and

sustainability risks across financial, institutional,

and socioeconomic aspects of the environment

sector.

The first Annual Country Portfolio Evaluation

Report presented the findings and recommen-

dations of the evaluations in Benin, Madagascar,

and South Africa to the GEF Council. The annual

report was discussed on April 22, 2008. It is pub-

lished separately (Evaluation Report No. 44). The

summary of the Madagascar evaluation was made

available to the Council as an information docu-ment. Throughout the Council discussions during

the April 2008 meeting, reference was made to the

findings of the specific country portfolio evalu-

ations in Benin, Madagascar, and South Africa,

which was a very positive sign that the evaluations


22/100

GEF Couty Potfolo Evluto: Mdgc (19942007)

were bringing information to the Council that was

relevant to its discussions on other subjects.

The findings of the evaluation were discussed in

Antananarivo in a workshop attended by a wide

range of stakeholders on February 25, 2008. I wouldlike to thank the government of Madagascar and all

participants for their interest shown in the evalua-tion and their support of the Evaluation Office.

Rob van den BergDirector, Evaluation Office


23/100

ackowledgmet

This report was prepared by a team led byLee Alexander Risby, Evaluation Officer, GEFEvaluation Office, and consisting of three con-sultants: Christian Chatelain, Timothy Healy, andAlain Randriamaherisoa.

Members of the government of Madagascar, inparticular, the staff of the Ministry of Environment,Forestry, Water and Tourism, provided full coop-eration and participated actively in this evalua-tion. The team is also grateful for the advice andlogistical support provided by Richard Lewis ofthe Durrell Wildlife Trust, Agnes Joignerez of

Aquaterre Ltd, and Maria Cruz Gonzalez andPatricia Lantosoa Ramarojaona of the UnitedNations Development Programme.

A draft document was presented in Antananarivo

on February 25, 2008, to national stakeholders,including representatives of the national govern-ment, GEF Agencies, nongovernmental orga-nizations, and other civil society partners. Thefeedback received was very constructive, and thecomments have been incorporated in this evalu-ation report. The Evaluation Office remains fullyresponsible for the contents of the report.


24/100

v

abbevto

ANGAP National Association for theManagement of Protected Areas(Association Nationale pour la Gestiondes Aires Protges)

ASCLME Agulhas-Somali current large marineecosystem

CBO community-based organization

CELCO Division for the Coordination of theEnvironmental Program (Cellulede Coordination du ProgrammeEnvironnemental)

CPE country portfolio evaluation

GEF Global Environment Facility

IUCN International Union for the Conservationof Nature and Natural Resources

MAP Madagascar Action Program

M&E monitoring and evaluation

MINEFT Ministry of Environment, Water, Forests,and Tourism

NAPA National Adaptation Program of Action

NEAP National Environmental Action Program

NGO nongovernmental organization

ONE National Environment Office (OfficeNational pour lEnvironnement)

PCB polychlorobiphenyl

POP persistent organic pollutant

PRSP poverty reduction strategy paper

RAF Resource Allocation Framework

SAGE Support to Environmental Management(Service dAppui la Gestion de

lEnvironnement)SAPM System of Protected Areas ofMadagascar (Systme dAires Protgesde Madagascar)

SLM sustainable land management

UNCBD United Nations Convention on BiologicalDiversity

UNCCD United Nations Convention to CombatDesertification

UNDP United Nations DevelopmentProgramme

UNEP United Nations EnvironmentProgramme

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Conventionon Climate Change

USAID U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment

WIO-LaB Addressing Land-Based Activities in theWestern Indian Ocean

WWF World Wide Fund for Nature


25/100

1. M Cocluo d recommedto

This chapter presents the conclusions of the GlobalEnvironment Facility (GEF) Madagascar CountryPortfolio Evaluation (CPE) and related recommen-dations to the GEF Council and the government ofMadagascar. The conclusions relate to the results,

effectiveness, relevance, and efficiency of GEFsupport. The evaluation for the Madagascar CPE,completed between November 2007 and February2008, is one of four African CPEs undertaken bythe GEF Evaluation Office during this period. Theevaluation focused on Madagascars portfolio of10 national projects and the Madagascar com-ponents of 8 of 13 regional projects. The otherregional projects and their results fall outside ofthe scope of this evaluation. Stakeholder com-

ments on a draft of this report, made in writingand at a consultation workshop held on February25, 2008, have been taken into account in finaliz-ing the conclusions and recommendations.

1.1 Bckgoud

Madagascars participation in the GEF started afterthe GEF pilot phase in 1994 with GEF participationin Environment Program II, one of three consecu-tive five-year programs supporting the National

Environmental Action Plan (NEAP). Since then,Madagascar has been involved in an additionalnine national projects for a total of about $36 mil-lion (see table 1.1). About 97 percent of the GEFfunding has supported projects in the biodiversityfocal area, 1.5 percent each for climate change and

persistent organic pollutants (POPs). There are nonational land degradation or international watersprojects. Madagascar participates in 13 regionalprojects, which address biodiversity, internationalwaters, land degradation, and POPs.

Tble 1.1

GEF Totl suppot to ntol Poject Mdgc, by Focl ae

Focl e

suppot

Mllo $ % of totl

biodivsiy 34.94 97.0

clima hang 0.55 1.5

POPs 0.50 1.5

Totl 35.99 100.0

Based on the overall purpose of the GEF CPEs andtheir terms of reference, the evaluation of GEFsupport to Madagascar had the following specificobjectives:

Independently evaluate thez relevance andefficiencyof GEF support in the country fromseveral points of view: national environmentalframeworks and decision-making processes;

the GEF mandate and the achievement of globalenvironmental benefits; and GEF policies andprocedures.

Assess thez effectiveness and results of com-pleted and ongoing projects in each relevantfocal area.


26/100

2 GEF Couty Potfolo Evluto: Mdgc (19942007)

Providez feedback and knowledge sharingto(1) the GEF Council in its decision-making pro-cess to allocate resources and develop policiesand strategies, (2) the country on its participa-

tion in the GEF, and (3) the different agencies

and organizations involved in the preparationand implementation of GEF support.

Among several considerations, Madagascar wasselected based on its large portfolio, programmaticapproach (for example, that used in Environment

Program I, II, and III), portfolio emphasis on bio-diversity and protected area systems, large alloca-tion for biodiversity under the Resource AllocationFramework (RAF), and its importance as a global

biodiversity hotspot.

1.2 Methodology

The Madagascar CPE was conducted by staff ofthe GEF Evaluation Office and three consultants

based in France and Madagascar, who made upthe evaluation team. The methodology included aseries of components using a combination of qual-itative and quantitative data collection methods

and standardized analytical tools. Several sources

of information were considered as the basis forthe evaluation at different levelsthat is, proj-

ect, government, civil society, GEF Implementingand executing Agencies, and so on. The quality ofthese documents was reviewed before they were

included in the evaluation. The quantitative anal-ysis used indicators to assess the efficiency of GEFsupport, using projects as the unit of analysis (thatis, time and cost of preparing and implementing

projects, and so on). The evaluation team used

standardized tools and protocols for the CPEs andadapted these to the Malagasy context. Projects

were selected for visits based on whether they hadbeen completed or were near completion, on proj-ect and/or project component approaches, and onaccessibility.

The main focus of the evaluation is projects imple-mented within the boundaries of Madagascar.The GEF has provided about $35.99 million for

10 such national projects from 1994 to 2007.In addition, eight regional projects in which

Madagascar participates were reviewed; thesewere selected because they had significant

Malagasy involvement and include four interna-tional waters projects. A full assessment of theiraggregate relevance, results, and efficiency was

beyond the scope of this CPE, given that only theMalagasy components were assessed. Nationaland regional project proposals under prepara-

tionfor example, those in pipelinesare notpart of the evaluation.

A number of limitations affected the evaluation:

Country portfolio evaluations are challeng-zing, as the GEF does not operate by establish-

ing country programs that specify expectedachievement through programmatic objectives,indicators, and targets.

Attribution is another area of complexity. ThezCPE does not attempt to attribute developmentand even environmental results directly to the

GEF, but assesses the contribution of GEF sup-port to overall achievements.

The assessment of results is focused, wherezpossible, at the level of outcomes and impact,rather than outputs.

Evaluating the impacts of GEF-funded initia-ztives is not straightforward. Many projects donot clearly or appropriately specify the expectedimpact or sometimes even the outcomes of

projects. As this evaluation was restricted tosecondary sources, it had no scope for conduct-ing primary research to supplement project

reports or identify impact and outcomes.

Results reported come from various sources;zsome have been established through external


27/100

1. M Cocluo d recommedto 3

evaluation, and others are drawn from internalproject reports and interviews.

The evaluation team has struggled to establish azclear, reliable set of data on projects and projectdocumentation. The available data, including the

list of projects in the GEF portfolio, containedinconsistencies, gaps, and discrepancies.

The evaluation was conducted within a tightztime frameeffectively four monthstoaccommodate the revised timing of the GEFCouncil meeting.

1.3 Cocluo

reult d Effectvee

Cocluo 1: GEF uppot h cotbuted g-fct eult bodvety coevto.

The GEF investment in the biodiversity focalarea has resulted in significant global benefits byincreasing the size and coverage of the Madagascarprotected area system from 21 to 46 reserves. Ithas also contributed to a decrease in the defores-tation rate inside protected areas.

The GEF has contributed to the implementationof the NEAP. This has resulted in (1) improve-ment of national policy-maker awareness andknowledge on environmental issues, (2) establish-ment of national institutions to address biodiver-sity conservation and other environmental issues,(3) broadening of the protected area system underthe System of Protected Areas in Madagascar(SAPM) to include new classificationsspecifi-cally, the International Union for the Conservationof Nature (IUCN) categories V and VIto provide

for greater community and private sector partici-pation. Notably, the GEF has supported the firstexample in Madagascar of sustainable communityprotected area management of 50,000 hectares ofthe Anjozorobe Forest Corridor. This experienceis now being scaled up.

The GEF enabling activities in biodiversity havehelped the government of Madagascar by inform-ing priority setting and the creation of newprotected areas (under the Durban Vision andSAPM), particularly in marine and coastal areas,

which were previously underrepresented.

Cocluo 2: The GEF eblg Mdgcto dde othe evometl chllege.

GEF support is enabling the government ofMadagascar and other stakeholders to address abroader range of national and global environmentalissues beyond the established focus on biodiversityconservation. GEF funding has mostly concen-trated on laying the foundations for Madagascar

to address global environmental issues throughenabling activities in POPs, climate change mitiga-tion and adaptation, and land degradation. Notably,the governments National Adaptation Program ofAction (NAPA) has identified national prioritiesand areas for future project investment.

Investment activities have occurred only in the inter-national waters focal area, in which Madagascar hasbeen an active partner with other Southern Africanand Indian Ocean states in addressing oil pollution

risks. This has resulted in capacity and infrastruc-ture improvements in Madagascars major ports.The sustainability of the investment has beenensured through a taxation system. Other inter-national waters investments to reduce land-basedpollutants, improve navigation, and manage fisher-ies are currently under way and have the potentialfor delivering results. Other investment activitiesare about to become effective in land degradation.

Cocluo 3: The GEF potfolo eult e tk becue of wek fcl, ttutol, docoecoomc utblty.

Despite more than $400 million of donorinvestment in the environment sector since1990including about $36 million of GEF grant


28/100


fundingfinancial, institutional, and socioeco-

nomic sustainability remains the key challenge,

particularly regarding the Environment Program

as it enters its final phase of implementation.

Financial sustainability has not been adequately

addressed in the Environment Program, because

donors, including the GEF, have been unable to

sufficiently catalyze a sustainable protected area

management system. Few of the protected areas

are able to self-finance their operations through

gate receipts and/or tourism revenues. The govern-

ment of Madagascar, the World Bank, and inter-

national nongovernmental organizations (NGOs),

with GEF support through the RAF allocation, are

in the process of establishing a trust fund mecha-

nism to support the countrys protected area sys-

tem in the long term. This has a strong potential

for resolving the financial sustainability issue.

Enabling institutional sustainability for effective

management of biodiversity and environmental

resources has been an issue common to the imple-

mentation rationales for Environment Program I

through III. However, despite significant financial

and technical investment by donors, institutional

sustainability is weak. The evaluation highlightsthe following issues:

The durability of an institution is often basedzon its broad capacity, from local to regional

and national levels, and on having sustainable

financing from revenue generation or through

government budget lines. Many of the institu-

tions currently working in Madagascars envi-

ronment sector do not have these characteris-

tics and are thus not sustainable without donorfinancing.

At the individual and institutional levels, capac-zities remain uneven and diffuse. The Ministry

of Environment, Water, Forestry, and Tourism

(MINEFT) is currently weak at the national and

local levels, and other institutions addressingthe environment receive the majority of donorfunding and technical assistance. Furthermore,institutional capacity barriers are associated

with decentralization, because ministry repre-

sentatives in the field lack skills to play a mean-ingful role in environmental management at

the local government and community scales.

The complexity of institutional roles andzresponsibilities in both Environment Program

II and III has decreased cross-institutionalcommunication and knowledge sharing.

With regard to socioeconomic sustainability,Environment Program II and III have consistently

emphasized integration of biodiversity conserva-tion with local community livelihoods. The sec-

ond program achieved some success in terms ofdeveloping community forestry and microprojectsto improve livelihoods, thereby relieving pressure

on protected areas, but overall the results werediffused and of limited sustainability. Under thethird program, the joint GEF and United Nations

Development Programme (UNDP) componentaddressing sustainable natural resource manage-

ment represents another attempt to resolve thetension between protection of biodiversity and

local community livelihoods; however, the resultsand sustainability of this approach have yet to berealized.

The independent evaluations of EnvironmentProgram I and II highlighted the difficulties the

program has faced in addressing the anthropo-genic pressures relating to rural development,poor agricultural techniques, and poverty, which

are threatening biodiversity (World Bank 2000,2007b). Ultimately, local populations near pro-tected areas are paying the price for the mainte-nance of global environmental benefits through

foregone access to resources. At present, theemphasis on linking conservation with rural and


29/100


agricultural development in a cohesive approachis not sufficient to provide incentives to supportbiodiversity conservation.

relevce

Cocluo 4: The GEF potfolo Mdgc elevt to tol pote d ttege.GEF uppot lged wth globl evome-tl beeft, wth the m emph the feldo bodvety.

GEF assistance has been fully supportive andconsistent with national priorities and strategies,such as the NEAP and the Poverty ReductionStrategy Paper (PRSP). The relevance of GEFsupport was found to be further enhanced by

the Durban Vision and the Madagascar ActionProgram (MAP). The main emphasis of the GEFportfolio has been on biodiversity conservation,which reflects Madagascars global environmentalresources. Until recently, the focus has been onterrestrial biodiversity, but with the implemen-tation of the Durban Vision, the government ofMadagascar has now begun to increase the cov-erage of the protected area system to safeguardcoastal and marine resources. The governments

increasing recognition of the threats posed by cli-mate change presents opportunities to link adap-tation, biodiversity conservation, and land degra-dation investments.

Cocluo 5: The ue of couty owehpd cpcty to cete owehp em keychllege fo the govemet of Mdgcd doo.

The evaluation revealed that government owner-

ship of the GEF-funded interventions is presentlynot as robust as it should be, particularly in rela-tion to the Environment Program. For example,although this program is linked to the NEAP, ithas been driven to a significant extent by the GEFImplementing Agencies and bilateral donors. The

reasons cited for donors taking the primary leadin driving the environment sector was a lack ofcapacity and leadership in the MINEFT.

Ministry staff at the level of the minister (the GEFpolitical focal point) and secretary general (theGEF operational focal point) have experiencedhigh turnover, which has not enabled stability orclarity of leadership on GEF issues or in the envi-ronmental sector as a whole. It is thus not surpris-ing that government ownership of EnvironmentProgram III is a challenge and that donors havebecome the actual drivers of the program.

The Environment Program has created manyinstitutions, such as the National Association for

the Management of Protected Areas (ANGAP),National Environment Office (ONE), and Supportto Environmental Management (SAGE), and acoordinating unit such as the Division for theCoordination of the Environmental Program(CELCO). This has resulted in a diffusion of insti-tutional roles that lack clarity, sufficient coordi-nating responsibility, and a complex institutionallandscape. Although these institutions haveownership over particular parts of Environment

Program III, reporting relationships to the minis-try remain unclear. The GEF Agencies have sup-ported the proliferation of institutions, reflectingthe low confidence of certain donors in capacity atthe ministry. This has tended not to solve owner-ship and capacity issues, but contributed to cur-rent ownership and capacity weaknesses at thenational and local levels.

At the local and regional levels, the AnjozorobeForest Corridor project, which Fanamby

(Madagascars largest environmental NGO) hasdeveloped and implemented, was observed to havestrong ownership and commitment both inter-nally with regard to its conservation approachwhich is fully in line with GEF strategiesandexternally with regard to its community and local


30/100


government stakeholders. Ownership in this proj-ect has been built through continuous involvementof stakeholders in project design and implemen-tation, coupled with good communication and astrong site presence on the part of Fanamby.

Effcecy

Cocluo 6: The complexty d effcecy ofthe GEF actvty Cycle h peeted be topoject developmet.

The majority of stakeholders (government,Implementing Agencies, and NGOs) expressednegative views of the GEF Activity Cycle for pre-vious projects, in terms of lengthy periods takenfor processing, associated high transaction costs

in terms of financial and human resource inputs,and lack of information and clarity relating todelays. These perceptions are primarily based onthe previous project cycle, on which the portfoliohas operated until now, and confirm the findingsof the Joint Evaluation of the GEF Activity Cycleand Modalities. As a result, the challenge for theGEF now lies in demonstrating that these featureswill not be carried forward into the new projectcycle that was recently adopted.

Cocluo 7: The ole d epoblte oftkeholde e ot cle, d coodto uboptml.

The institutional landscape in Madagascar iscomplex, because roles and responsibilities arediffused. This presents many challenges for com-munication, coordination, and knowledge shar-ing. The challenge of defining and allocatingroles and responsibilities is not a new issue for

Madagascar. The previous independent evalua-tions of Environment Program I and II both high-light a lack of clarity in roles and responsibilitiesfrom the national level of the ministry to the com-munity level (World Bank 1997, 2000). At present,several of the international waters regional projects

have focal points based in institutions whose com-parative advantage is not in international waters,with limited involvement of more appropriate line

ministries. This situation is suboptimal.

Because of the large number of stakeholders

involved in Environment Program II and III,coordination at many levels has been challeng-

ing. Several attempts have been made to solve thisissue, but to date they have been less than satis-factory. Interviews with a number of donors, the

government of Madagascar, and internationalNGOs raised these issues repeatedly, indicat-ing that Environment Program III coordination

remains a persistent challenge in terms of syner-gies between donor-funded and interministerial

activities and between monitoring and evaluation(M&E) systems and reporting frameworks. Morerecently, donors and the government have tried

to address the challenges through a multidonor-government steering committee, but this has notmet frequently and has widely been seen as donor

rather than government drivenin part a resultof the institutional weaknesses within the min-

istry and turnover of staff since the beginning ofEnvironment Program III.

Cocluo 8: The opetol focl pot mech-m cuetly udeeouced d ubleto be opetol.

The operational focal point lacks resources and

time to develop and supervise the GEF portfolioadequately. This position has lacked institutionalcontinuity, given 11 personnel changes in the past

10 years (4 of which occurred in the past 4 years).

Furthermore, Madagascar lacks a stable GEFnational committee to program RAF resourcesstrategically and coordinate on environmental

issues outside a project or program. A committeehas met in the past, but it has tended to be ad hocand to lack structure.


31/100


Cocluo 9: Kowledge mgemet d le-o leg e ot fomlzed d e mpededbecue of lck of M&E.

There is no formal modality for exchange of les-sons learned and knowledge sharing between GEF

projects and programs and other donor and inter-national NGO environmental programs. Lack ofimprovement in M&E means that knowledge man-agement on project experiences and best practicewill remain limited because of the inability to knowwhat is success or failure, and the reasons why.

1.4 recommedto

recommedto to the GEF Coucl

recommedto 1: The GEF hould codefuthe uppotg tut fud ppochto mpovg the utblty of globl ev-ometl beeft.

Weaknesses in financial sustainability are a com-mon issue associated with project-based interven-tions. In the 1990s, the GEF supported trust fundsas an approach to securing sustainability for pro-tected areas beyond the life of projects. The recentimpact evaluation of Bwindi-Mgahinga Trust

Fund confirmed the effectiveness of this approachfor the augmentation and maintenance of manage-ment capacities and recurring costs, as well as theprovision of incentives for local communities. TheGEF Council should consider renewing its empha-sis on trust funds to sustain global environmentalgains.

recommedto 2: The GEF hould develop ttegy to mpove cpcte to ddeglobl evometl ue let developed

coute.

This approach could include several elements:

Strengthening of the GEF focal point mecha-znisms to function effectively

Developing an effective integrated strategicz

coordination approach for partnership for

funding

Facilitating the creation of partnerships toz

increase the mobilization of resources for theimplementation of the global conventions

related to the GEF, in particular for least devel-

oped countries

Facilitating effective and strategic integration,z

coordination, and dialogue among environ-

mental actors at the country level, particularly

among ministries

Recognizing the differences in country capaci-z

ties and economic development and the needfor flexibility and tailored approaches

recommedto to the Govemet ofMdgc

recommedto 3: Mdgc hould co-

de ettg up pemet temtel

d multdoo evometl commttee.

The need exists to address environmental issues

in a comprehensive and coherent manner outside

of a project or program committee.

A permanent committee should be linked to exist-

ing government strategies, such as the MAP and

the Durban Vision, and involve a broad range of

ministerial partners (for example, the Ministries

of Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries; Finance;

Mining; and Transport). Such a committee would

also provide a platform for the strategic cross-sec-toral consideration of environmental issues within

the context of the MAP, and the development of

a strategy for and the programming of GEF RAF

resources.


32/100


recommedto 4: ivetmet the evo-metl ecto eed to be moe dvefed todde thet to utblty.

The majority of support provided by donors andinternational NGOs for biodiversity conserva-

tion has focused on establishing a more com-prehensive protected area system. However, thisapproach has tended to neglect external threatsto biodiversity in the wider landscape relat-ing to poor agricultural practices (for example,slash-and-burn agriculture or tavy), povertyreduction, and land degradation. These issuesare now being given greater urgency and focuswith the threat of climate change and need foradaptation.

Addressing these threats requires a focus on biodi-versity conservation within the context of SAPM byestablishing IUCN categories V and VI protectedareas to improve the integration of such conserva-tion with livelihoods. It also requires mainstream-ing biodiversity, land degradation, and adaptationissues outside of protected areas to enable moreeffective practical linkages with poverty reductionand agricultural and rural development, which arethe pertinent issues for Madagascars predomi-

nantly rural population.

To this end, the government of Madagascar anddonors will need to address the persistent capac-ity development gap and forge partnerships withNGOs, the private sector, local governments, andcommunities to address institutional, financial,and socioeconomic barriers to sustainability inthe environment sector as it relates to the coun-trys pressing development challenges. Such issues

could be addressed and programmed by a perma-nent environment committee (per recommenda-tion 1).

recommedto to the implemetgagece

recommedto 5. The implemetg age-ce eed to wok moe cloely wth the gove-met of Mdgc d othe tkeholde toehce couty owehp.

The weakness in country ownership is a signifi-

cant finding of the evaluation. Ownership could

be strengthened in the following ways:

Involvement of the Implementing Agencies inzthe recommended permanent interministerial

and multidonor committee to the government,

providing the basis for more strategic formula-

tion of priorities, drawing on Agency experi-

ences, and responding to country needs

Implementing Agency assistance to the opera-z

tional focal point to strengthen his or her role

through involvement in project design, super-

vision and monitoring missions, and regular

sharing of information

Further emphasis on capacity development inzprojects and programs, which will allow a range

of stakeholdersfrom the ministry to local

government and communitiesto becomemore involved in GEF interventions

recommedto 6: The implemetg age-ce eed to wok wth the govemet of Md-gc d othe tkeholde to code moeectowde d pogmmtc ppoche touppotg evometl utblty.

Madagascars environmental problems are com-

plex and require the consideration of sectorwide

and programmatic approaches that are able tolink and coordinate biodiversity conservation,

land degradation, and adaptation with rural and


33/100


agricultural development and poverty reduction.In doing so, the GEF Agencies and governmentneed to take stock of the cumulative evalua-tive evidence now available to them to internal-ize the lessons of the Environment Program and

move forward together to plan a more coherentand sustainable programmatic and/or sectorwideapproach.

In the case of climate change adaptation and landdegradation, these issues are at the top of regional(continent-level) priorities and have potential forproviding local incentives to enhance the deliveryand sustainability of global environmental andnational development benefits.

1.5 Emegg iue Cocegthe raF

As the GEF Evaluation Office is presently conduct-ing a review of the RAF at its midterm point ofimplementation, it was not considered appropri-ate to make final conclusion

GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Madagascar 1994-2007 (World Bank- 2008)

Documents

Transcript of GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Madagascar 1994-2007 (World Bank- 2008)